insan wrote:Get Real! wrote:zan wrote:What gets my goat are those seeing an ideal as an option in the complicated Cyprus problem.....No one should lose and no one should gain is an impossibility. Compromise and restraint is what is needed....Not Idealistic rants that only help to fuel the anger.
This is 2009, and here we are often talking about democracy yet you still go on about segregationist percentages and that… how do you differ from the people of the past?
You call the Cyprus problem “complicated”… well you’re damn right it’s complicated if some insist on favoritism and reject a fare & square democracy.
In 1960, favoritism was granted to the Turkish Cypriots without the consent of the Greek Cypriots via a democratic referendum, and what did you gain from it? Violence!
In 2009, what are your leaders aiming for? Favoritism again! So what have they learned from the past? NOTHING!
What u ignorantly call "favouritism" is officially known as "consociationalism".
And the differwence is what exactly and just what was it that it was so great about it.?
Here are couple of quotes about "consociationalism".!
The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of democracy and the avoidance of violence.
So lets recap for a moment on what "consociationalism" was meant to do for Cyprus using the above explanation on "consociationalism".!
1. Did it bring stabilitiy to the Government in Cyprus.?
2. Did the power sharing agreement survived.?
3. Did the original intended "Democracy" survived.?
4. Was violance avoided.?
The answer is a NO on all fronts, so once again, "consociationalism" failed Cyprus.
1. sharing executive power among representatives of all significant groups
2. segmental autonomy: each group has a great deal of internal leeway
3.proportional representation and allocation of positions
4.minority veto on vital issues (mutual veto)
There are both positives and negatives to group rights. On the positive side, it can ensure that all groups are represented and have access to political and economic power. On the negative side, it discriminates against individuals and makes the conferring of benefits be based not only individual merit or achievement but on group identity. This can be especially problematic if talent is not distributed evenly among all groups in a particular field, but access to jobs or opportunities is restricted by quota.
1. So excecutive power is only shared by "significant groups", which means the other groups are considered to be insignificant and therefore can be ignored and have their Democratic and Human Rights violated.!
2. There never was a segmented "significant groups", because all the groups mostly lived in mixed villages, therefore, there could not be "segmented autonomy" given to any group in 1960.
3. There never was a proportianal representation and allocation of positions, because more were given to the TC's at 30%, when they only represented 18% of the population, therefore once again, "consociationalism" failed in it's purpose.
4. Minority had a veto power on all issues.
It is time to bring True Democracy to Cyprus once and for all as it is practiced all over Europe and the west in general and stop playing games with failed experiments such as "consociationalism".!
